Peace Protesters Are to be Blamed for War

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

Let me start off by saying that the peace protesters have every right in this country to express their views. However, I think it is ironically hilarious that the war is their fault (amongst others). The war is their fault because Saddam believed that because of them the coalition forces would probably not attack, so he continued to hide his weapons of mass destruction thereby triggering the war. The war drags on now because Saddam has further miscalculated that the war protesters are going to somehow force Bush to pack up the army and send them home. This is probably the argument he's using to get his armies to continue the resistance.

[DennyA]

Wow.

That makes as much sense as does you spending years of your life trolling Derek Smart.

[ydejin]

Honestly I think for the past two months or so just about everyone who takes a realistic view of things knew we were going to go into Iraq regardless of what the peace protesters were or were not doing. Now, Saddam of course may not be the kind of person who takes a "realistic view of things".

While you're busy blaming the peace protestors, you might also want to point some fingers at the Bush administration for saying "disarmament" out of one side of their mouth while saying "we won't be satisfied by anything short of regime change" out of the other side of their mouth. Why would Saddam give up his weapons if he knew we were going to come in and take him out regardless of what he did.

I will admit that the administration's theory that we can’t verify "disarmament" without a regime change did have some merit.

As far as motivating his people to fight -- how about using something simple like "the Imperialist Yankee heathen dogs are invading our country, let's fight them off"? Frankly given the state of Iraqi television, which I presume has close to zero objectivity, I don’t think Saddam needs real peace protests going on in the US. He's going to claim whatever he wants to claim regardless of what's really going on in the world.

I was hopeful that the Iraqi's would collapse quickly and that most of the Iraqi military would not fight for Saddam. However, realistically most nations will rally around the flag when attacked. People who do not support Saddam may still be willing to fight off an invading force, particularly when that force does not have the backing of most of the international community.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

While you're busy blaming the peace protestors, you might also want to point some fingers at the Bush administration

I agree, there are many things that might have happened differently that possibly could have avoided the war. I just find the irony in placing part of the blame on the peace protestors to be very amusing.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Well, I agree that they're partly to blame. I mean it's a major selling point for you anti-war types to say that Saddam was cooperating a bit, and why was he cooperating? The threat of force. What were the peace protestors preventing? The threat of force.
You can't deny that, in fact this same thing's been said for weeks now about France. It's why we were so pissed that they threatened to veto the bill unless all possibility of war was removed, many people saw that as a step in the wrong direction.

[Mark Asher]

There was no way Bush wasn't going to war unless Saddam fled Iraq. That's been clear all along. It was the protests of the world community which slowed him up a bit, but once he started the build-up, he was going to fight.

Now you're saying that the decision to go to war is somehow linked to protests? That if there were no protests Saddam would have realized Bush was serious and voluntarily given up power?

Are you guys soft in the head?

You guys also realize that even if Saddam and sons had left Iraq, we were still going in with our troops to install a new government, don't you?

[Bullhajj]

This is pretty funny stuff. In my best Urkel voice, "Did I do that?"

Of course I'm not giving this argument much credibility, so I suppose Vede will come charing in to call me bad boy now, lol.

[Captain Cookiepants]

There was no way Bush wasn't going to war unless Saddam fled Iraq. That's been clear all along. It was the protests of the world community which slowed him up a bit, but once he started the build-up, he was going to fight.
Now you're saying that the decision to go to war is somehow linked to protests? That if there were no protests Saddam would have realized Bush was serious and voluntarily given up power?
Are you guys soft in the head?
You guys also realize that even if Saddam and sons had left Iraq, we were still going in with our troops to install a new government, don't you?

Hey, as long as we're taking peeks into alternate realities and reporting things as fact: I just made my 50th movie and my Oscar acceptance speech was me playing the fiddle versus the devil, if I won I got a fiddle made of gold, but if I lost the devil would have taken my soul. I won.

[chumpface]

There was an amazing Frontline this week where they portray the current adminstration as a battle of wills between two factions of the Bush 41 administration. On one side, you had the Hawks (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) and on the other side you have, well, Powell (and to some degree, the spirit of Bush Pere).

Apparently Wolfowitz had written a policy paper on United States Preemptory military action and if necessary, unilateral military action, circa 1991 that espoused a very similar position to the post 9/11 administration. At the time, the paper horrified the likes of Powell and Bush Pere, who sent it back to Cheney (then the Sec. Of Defense) for a friendly but firm rewrite. Under orders, Cheney modified the doc to embrace multilateral policies, building coalitions, etc.

It would seem that GW was more in the mind of his father, pre-9/11. However, from watching the Frontline piece (and reading a range of associated materials) one can't help get the feeling that GW himself is sort of, maybe, kind of insignificant. I don't think anyone, conservative, liberal, what have you imagines him an intellectual giant.

In the context of this larger story, GW seems more like a very small ship rocked back and forth on the wills of men who have practically defined the conservative landscape for the last 25 years.

If one was to assume that Wolfowitz's early 90s policy papers have become policies, one has to look down the road and see what that means. One would have to further assume that Iraq is not the final stop, and that the War on Terrorism bears potential to evolve into the war on real and/or perceived Threats.

The thing is, I like the idea of a world where all the dictatorships have become democracies. However, I'm pretty scared of what the world will become in an effort to make that possible, if it is even remotely possible. I have the feeling we're very early in the first act of a very long, very scary play.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, I like the idea of a world where all the dictatorships have become democracies.

I like the idea of a world where the middle-easterners embrace crass commercialism and stop being angry, killing types.

Oh well. It looks like Armageddon's coming soon anyway. The war in the middle east, and now the incurable virus is spreading around the world.

Soon Reagan's brain will be completely clear, Satan will enter it, and a bunch of people who don't read this board will be Raptured.

[Mark Asher]

"If one was to assume that Wolfowitz's early 90s policy papers have become policies, one has to look down the road and see what that means. One would have to further assume that Iraq is not the final stop, and that the War on Terrorism bears potential to evolve into the war on real and/or perceived Threats."

The logical extension of Bush's preemptive strike military policy is that we will continue to engage in military action against other nations. After all, both Iran and North Korea are every bit as scary as Iraq. It may be too late to preempt nukes in North Korea, but it's not too late to strike at the reactors Iran is finishing up.

Of course, it's all the fault of the peaceniks. Damn them for mobilizing our armed forces and giving the command to attack!

[Bullhajj]

On one of the recent news reports I had to laugh when they reported one of our missles went "astray" into Iran. It didnt' really say what it hit, if anything, but I immediately thought of the Chinese Embassy we "accidentally" blasted. With the capabilities of todays weapons, can we ever again believe that a missle misses that wide of a mark?

[ydejin]

On one of the recent news reports I had to laugh when they reported one of our missles went "astray" into Iran.

Last I heard Iran had confirmed that the missle was actually Iraqi and we were absolved of any blame for it. Here's a link. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iran.missiles/index.html)

[Anders Hallin]

On one of the recent news reports I had to laugh when they reported one of our missles went "astray" into Iran.

Last I heard Iran had confirmed that the missle was actually Iraqi and we were absolved of any blame for it. Here's a link. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/23/sprj.irq.iran.missiles/index.html)
From what I read that was the NW missiles, which turned out to be Iraqi, while the Southwest missiles turned out to be American. Or something like that.

[Guido Jones]

On one of the recent news reports I had to laugh when they reported one of our missles went "astray" into Iran. It didnt' really say what it hit, if anything, but I immediately thought of the Chinese Embassy we "accidentally" blasted. With the capabilities of todays weapons, can we ever again believe that a missle misses that wide of a mark?

See - today's weapons are incredibly accurate, but they're not infalliable. Example:

The Patriot missle system during the first gulf war had some issues with target acquisation and firing - basically if the system was left on for about 3 weeks it would appear to still be working, but it would not automatically fire as it would fall into a buffer overflow state. So a few scud's landed without being intercepted before they figured out the code fault and fixed it.

Why did a code fault like this get in in the first place? The Patriot was designed as a mobile anti-aircraft system, light and small enough to keep on the move with the front lines. As such it wasn't ever intended to be left up as a fixed anti-air system around a city - it wasn't part of the design goals. As such, the software never cleared out the time buffer, so if the system was left on for 3 or so weeks (something that wasn't supposed to happen) it failed.

Weapons do fail. Shit happens. It's war - and even if our weapons are 99% accurate, that means 10 out of every 1000 weapons will miss and go astray - somewhere. We're using a lot more then a 1000 weapons a day, and the accuracy rate is more around 95%. So while you may not be able to believe it, people with some military knowledge would have no issue.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

Of course, it's all the fault of the peaceniks. Damn them for mobilizing our armed forces and giving the command to attack!

:) Did someone (besides you) say that the war was "all the fault" of the peaceniks?

[Dave Long]

chumpface is right on the mark...read this...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/889490.asp?0cv=CB10

It details the events/personalities/build up to where we are today. The hawks have definitely been waiting for this chance and this may only be the first step. Even if you're a conservative, this should put a little butterfly in your stomach.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

Of course, it's all the fault of the peaceniks. Damn them for mobilizing our armed forces and giving the command to attack!

:) Did someone (besides you) say that the war was "all the fault" of the peaceniks?

Here's what you said:

"Let me start off by saying that the peace protesters have every right in this country to express their views. However, I think it is ironically hilarious that the war is their fault (amongst others)."

[Xaroc]

Wow.

That makes as much sense as does you spending years of your life trolling Derek Smart.

Denny, stop it man you are going to get me in trouble at work. I am dying over here. :)

-- Xaroc

[dwinn]

The Patriot missle system during the first gulf war had some issues with target acquisation and firing

Some issues? At the beginning of that war, the gov't reported it was 95% effective. Afterwords, the numbers thrown around range anywhere between 50% to 0% effective, depending on who you ask.

Slate talks about the difference between today's interceptors and those previous Patriots here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2080615/

[dannimal]

The problem with the Patriot software was that the users ignored the instructions to make sure the controlling "computer" was re-booted every three days. There was a *known* issue with a fractional amount of time being lost over time in the software, and that's what required the reboot. The ones that were left without rebooting for weeks were the ones that didn't acquire/didn't intercept.

That said, it might not have mattered given the later information on intercept rates (much closer to 0% then 95%).

[Captain Cookiepants]

Of course, it's all the fault of the peaceniks. Damn them for mobilizing our armed forces and giving the command to attack!

:) Did someone (besides you) say that the war was "all the fault" of the peaceniks?

Here's what you said:

"Let me start off by saying that the peace protesters have every right in this country to express their views. However, I think it is ironically hilarious that the war is their fault (amongst others)."

A dramatic reenactment of how Mr. Asher read that sentence
*ahem*
"Hmmm 'peace protestors to blame for the war? I better check this out...hmmm...hmm...hmmm...'Let me start off by saying that the peace protesters have every right in this country to express their views. However, I think it is ironically hilarious that the war is their fault (am-' AAAHHH MY EYES!! MY BEAUTIFUL EYES! I CAN'T READ THE END OF THIS POST CAUSE I GOT LEMON JUICE IN MY EYES!! AAAAAAAAARRRRHHGGGG!!!'"

Fini.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

I GOT LEMON JUICE IN MY EYES!! AAAAAAAAARRRRHHGGGG!!!'"


Ouch! I hate it when that happens. I learned the hard way to wear safety goggles whenever I read this forum. QuarterToThree definitely has the juiciest lemons on the Internet.

[HaveFun (Bill Huffman)]

Here's what you said:


I believe that the war has happened for many reasons and could possibly have been avoided (or at least significantly postponed) if many other things had happened differently. I never said it was all the fault of the peace demonstraters. Now I took your statement of "all ..." to be a humorous shot which I very much enjoyed. I thought to try a return shot in kind.

I do believe though that at this point in time the military needs to get a job done and the history of Iraq will eventually paint this war as the Iraqi "War of Independence". I further believe that the peace demonstrations at this point are probably doing more harm than good. I say this even though I didn't vote for Bush and I disagree with him going into Iraq without trying harder to get official UN backing first.

[runesword forger]

Wow.

That makes as much sense as does you spending years of your life trolling Derek Smart.

He shoots, he scores!

[Mark Asher]

"I further believe that the peace demonstrations at this point are probably doing more harm than good."

What harm can they do? We're committed to finishing off Saddam and installing a new government in Iraq. The protests will have no affect on this. It's going to happen, protests or not.

[Rywill]

I think his point is that the protests make Saddam think it's still worth fighting, because any second now the coalition's political will is going to collapse. Whereas if Iraq shared your fatalism about the situation, maybe he'd try to go into exile or maybe his own guys would kill him to save themselves.

Which is not to say I agree with this point. Just trying to clear it up (as I understand it).

[Brad Grenz]

Not to mention property damage some participants cause, in addition to the millions it costs in tax dollars to police them and the economic hardship incurred by local businesses as a result of disruptive protests, all in protest of what is a foregone conclusion. If people want to protest, fine. Do so peacefully and without interferring with traffic or damaging property or penalizing local businesses who have little to no influence on foreign policy, and in places like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, probably already agree with the protestors!

[Captain Cookiepants]

Not to mention property damage some participants cause, in addition to the millions it costs in tax dollars to police them and the economic hardship incurred by local businesses as a result of disruptive protests, all in protest of what is a foregone conclusion. If people want to protest, fine. Do so peacefully and without interferring with traffic or damaging property or penalizing local businesses who have little to no influence on foreign policy, and in places like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle, probably already agree with the protestors!

In contrast: Just had a PRO-war rally not too far from here, wish I could have gone, but there were NO arrests, NO property damage, and NO rioting, in fact the only trouble was from anti-war protestors who started throwing things.
Interpret THAT.

[Jason McCullough]

Remember the FL 2000 riot where conservatives were punching people?

[Captain Cookiepants]

Remember the FL 2000 riot where conservatives were punching people?

Yeah that pro-war rally against Saddam and for the war in Iraq certainly got out of hand...waaaaaiittt a miiinuuteee....

[Anonymous]

In contrast: Just had a PRO-war rally not too far from here, wish I could have gone, but there were NO arrests, NO property damage, and NO rioting, in fact the only trouble was from anti-war protestors who started throwing things.
Interpret THAT.

There were no arrests because the cops like people who like authority. There was no damage because the only people at peace rallies who cause damage are anarchists who believe that the businesses they are vandalizing are contributing to the political situation they are rebelling against.

I don't agree with anarchist tactics, but it's absurd to think that pro-war protesters would cause property damage or get arrested, not because they are nicer people but because they agree with everything our government is doing, and thus have no reason to rebel against their society.

[Captain Cookiepants]

So it's yet ANOTHER conspiracy? 'No, let's not arrest those rioters, they're on our side.'?? Pfffttttt.

And you're saying that smashing a Best Buy and stealing a bunch of stereos is an acceptable form of protest? Or that Best Buy somehow supplies the government with the things it needs to go to war? The evil fur shops in New York are sending our troops all the combat furs they need? And you're gonna have to supply me with a link that shows Radio Shack delivering pallets of remote control cars and shitty little radios to the white house. You expect me to believe that the protestors actually thing they're hurting the government by breaking into these places and stealing everything?

Your defence is that anti-war protestors are profoundly stupid. Way to go.

[Mark Asher]

Remember the FL 2000 riot where conservatives were punching people?

But that was ok because it was for a good cause!

[Anonymous]

And you're saying that smashing a Best Buy and stealing a bunch of stereos is an acceptable form of protest? Or that Best Buy somehow supplies the government with the things it needs to go to war? The evil fur shops in New York are sending our troops all the combat furs they need? And you're gonna have to supply me with a link that shows Radio Shack delivering pallets of remote control cars and shitty little radios to the white house. You expect me to believe that the protestors actually thing they're hurting the government by breaking into these places and stealing everything?

Got any links to any reliable journalistic sources that report masses of antiwar protesters breaking into Best Buy to steal stereos? Because I've never heard of that happening at peace demonstrations. Do you have war protests confused with the Rodney King verdict riots? As I said above, I don't agree with anarchist tactics. But I haven't heard of anarchists using protests as cover for petty theft of home luxury items. I get the feeling that you're talking out your ass on this one, because something stinks in here and I don't think it's me.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Oh grow up, just cause you go out of your way to avoid the stories doesn't mean I have to hand you things on a silver platter. If you didn't hear about the police killings in India or the riot in New York, amongst many others, that how is it you deem yourself fit to have a conversation with others on the subject? It's like trying to join a bookclub when you've only read the pages you like.

[Mark Asher]

I didn't hear about the Best Buy thing either. Where did it happen? How much was stolen?

[Andrew Mayer]

Oh grow up, just cause you go out of your way to avoid the stories doesn't mean I have to hand you things on a silver platter.[quote]

So it's okay if no one actually believes you then, right?

[quote]It's like trying to join a bookclub when you've only read the pages you like.

But it's exactly like someone giving you opinions about a news story they aren't willing to let you read...

[Anonymous]

Oh grow up, just cause you go out of your way to avoid the stories doesn't mean I have to hand you things on a silver platter. If you didn't hear about the police killings in India or the riot in New York, amongst many others, that how is it you deem yourself fit to have a conversation with others on the subject? It's like trying to join a bookclub when you've only read the pages you like.


Interesting. I did a search using Google's new "news" search, and a search of Yahoo News and turned up nothing about Best Buy beyond the fact that they are closing some stores due to financial problems. You could have admitted you were caught up in a flight of fancy right away and saved some face. Now you seem stuck in a deliberate series of lies. You're starting to make me sick. Redeem yourself if you can, Captain Forkedtongue.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Oh Jesus fuck, I used Best Buy as an example, most stores broken into are mom and pop things. Typical anti-war bullshit: focus on ONE thing to disprove EVERYTHING. If I wrote a 600 page dissertation on why the war is needed and neccesary you stupid fucks would measure the margins and call me a liar because they're too wide.
Just replace 'best buy' with whatever store you HAVE seen in the news, McDonalds, Starbucks, cause unless your source for news is your 2 year old sister your search had to have turned up a couple instances.

Here: no specifics in this one but a nifty list: 250 protestors arrested on various charges (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/17/iraq/main540805.shtml)

But I'm done, you can find other links in other threads, you just don't WANT to see them (or can't see them through your rage over my mentioning 'Best Buy')
Better yet check your Liberal news media, the stories'll be filed under 'Almost NO looting!!'

[Anonymous]

Oh Jesus fuck, I used Best Buy as an example

An example apparently completely unsupported by fact, i.e. a lie.


most stores broken into are mom and pop things.

Why should I believe this generality when your previous precise statements regarding Best Buy and Radio Shack have been proven to be total fabrications?


Typical anti-war bullshit: focus on ONE thing to disprove EVERYTHING. Just replace 'best buy' with whatever store you HAVE seen in the news, McDonalds, Starbucks, cause unless your source for news is your 2 year old sister your search had to have turned up a couple instances.

Here: no specifics in this one but a nifty list: 250 protestors arrested on various charges (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/17/iraq/main540805.shtml)

How pathetic. I just read that story. Nowhere does it mention anyone stealing stereos from Best Buy or Radio Shack, as was your accusation, or stealing fur coats, as you also mentioned. You state I am obsessed with specifics yet no aspect of what you said was true. Your statement was completely falsified, a paranoid delusion, and a slur. You have no shame, sir.

[Anonymous]

I just reread that story just to be sure. The only place it mentions the word "looting" is to mention that the police closed off streets "to prevent looting." It doesn't say any looting occurred. Jesus, you're desperate.

[Jason McCullough]

"Most of the 257 arrests were for disorderly conduct and other minor violations, police said. Five people were arrested on felony charges and 53 on misdemeanors."

So out of 200,000 demonstraters, they got 5/60.

[Andrew Mayer]

But I'm done, you can find other links in other threads, you just don't WANT to see them (or can't see them through your rage over my mentioning 'Best Buy')
Better yet check your Liberal news media, the stories'll be filed under 'Almost NO looting!!'

With the tremendous amount of pro-war propaganda that's out there these days your laziness is just pathetic.

C'mon. You could at least get up the gumption to give us the obligatory link to Ann Coulter...

[voltaic]

I blame marijuana users for the war. Haven't you seen those commercials? Buying a bag of shit-quality weed from your buddy at high school goes DIRECTLY INTO THE POCKETS of those commie arab columbian narco-koreans. Damn those drugs.